alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

THE COAST DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM,
INC.

Annual Report on Form 10-K

for the Year ended December 31, 2010

In connection with accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Coast Distribution System, Inc. (the Company), for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the Annual Report), I, Sandra A. Knell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 31, 2011 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/    SANDRA A. KNELL                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Sandra A. Knell                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
|                     |  |  | 
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Coast Distribution System Inc. and will be retained by The Coast Distribution
System Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Melburn F. KENNEDY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27859.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 30, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of an attempt to commit the offense of burglary and his punishment assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for two years.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
Certificate of Trust



  Exhibit 4.4 
   
 SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED 
 CERTIFICATE OF TRUST 
 OF 
 BANK ONE CAPITAL IV 
  
 THIS
Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Trust of BANK ONE Capital IV (the “Trust”) is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned, as trustee, to amend and restate the original Certificate of Trust of the Trust (the
“Certificate of Trust”), which was filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware (the “Secretary of State”) on June 16, 1999, as amended and restated by the Amended and Restated Certificate of Trust of the Trust,
which was filed with the Secretary of State on August 1, 2000, under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. § 3801, et seq.) (the “Act”). 
  
 1. Name. The name of the statutory trust is BANK ONE Capital IV. 
  
 2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of
the Trust in the State of Delaware is The Bank of New York (Delaware), White Clay Center, Route 273, Newark, Delaware 19711. 
  
 3. Effective Date. This Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon filing. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being a trustee of the Trust, has duly
executed this Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Trust as of the              day of             , 2004, in
accordance with Section 3811(a) of the Act. 
  

			
		
	By:	 	 
	 	 	 Name: Laurence Goldman

	 	 	 Title:   Regular Trustee
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 5
EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 5
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 5
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 5
EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 5
<PAGE>                                    
                                 EXHIBIT 23




                CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



To CYTOGEN CORPORATION:

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation of our report included in this Form 10-K, into the
Company's previously filed Form S-8 Registration Statement (File
No. 33-30595), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 18, 1989, Form S-3 Registration Statement (File No. 33-35140), 
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
31, 1990, Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 33-52574),
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29,
1992, Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 33-57004), filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 12, 1993,
Form S-3 Registration Statement (File No. 33-77396) filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 6, 1994, Form S-8
Registration Statement (File No. 33-63321), filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 10, 1995, Form S-8
Registration Statement (File No. 333-00431), filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 25, 1996 and Form S-8
Registration Statement (File No. 333-04679), filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 29, 1996, Form S-8
Registration Statement (File No. 333-27673) filed with Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 23, 1997, and Form S-3 Registration
Statement (File No. 333-43809) filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 6, 1998.


                                        ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP




Philadelphia, PA
    April 9, 1998


                                  70
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130914 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan ROGER ROMANS, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130914 COA: 256251 Oakland CC: 03-051714-NO CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF HIGHLAND, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 19, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERS E the judgment of the Court of Appeals and REINSTATE the order of the Oakland Circu it Court granting summary disposition to the defendant. As this Court explained in Horace v City of Pontiac , 456 Mich 744, 757 (1998), "[a] danger of injury caused by the area in front of an entrance or exit is not a danger that is presented by a physical condition of the building itself." In Fane v Detroit Library Comm , 465 Mich 68, 78 (2001), this Court held that "in determining whether an item or area outside the four walls of a buildi ng is 'of a public buildi ng,' the courts should consider whether the item or area where the injury occurred is phys ically connected to and not intended to be removed from the building." Here, the alleged defect is the lack of a physical connection between the sidewalk and the covered entryway; thus, the area complained of is not physica lly connected to the building. Accordingly, the trial court correctly concluded that the gap between the sidewalk and the entryway is not a defect "of the public building."

C AVANAGH and K ELLY , JJ., would deny leave to appeal.

l0926 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 29, 2006

Clerk
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41092

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE AYALA-BERMUDES, also known as Jose Alexander Ayala,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-02-CR-179-1

--------------------

February 11, 2003

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Ayala-Bermudes, a/k/a Jose Alexander Ayala, was

convicted for being present unlawfully in the United States

following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and has

appealed his sentence. Ayala contends that the district court

plainly erred in concluding that his state misdemeanor conviction

for Harassment, under TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 42.07(a)(2) (West

1996), was a “crime of violence” for purposes of U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(E) (2001). Because this issue was not decided at
No. 02-41092

-2-

the time Ayala was sentenced, any error on the part of the

district court was not clear or obvious and, accordingly, was not

plain error. See United States v. Hull, 160 F.3d 265, 272 (5th

Cir. 1998). 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          24,749
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,749
<PP&E>                                         240,538
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,694,641
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,362,140
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,847
<OTHER-SE>                                  (3,327,654)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,694,641
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  687,584
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,418
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (716,002)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (716,002)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (716,002)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.16)


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 97-20516

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. MARGARITA MORIN-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(H-95-CR-216-2)

_________________________________________________________________ August 06, 1998 Before KING, SMITH, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * After reviewing the briefs and the record and hearing argument, we are not persuaded that the evidence was insufficient to support the appellant’s conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and aiding and abetting the possession with the intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) (b)(1)(B). We elect not to address the appellant’s claim that2

she received ineffective assistance of counsel on the basis that the record is not sufficiently developed to permit a decision on those issues. Should the appellant elect to pursue those claims further, she should do so in the context of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action. AFFIRMED.
-78 -76 -74 -72

 38

 40

★ ▲

▲

▲ ▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

08/18

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.03 N 77.49 W Meters AGL
<Page>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.19

                       JOINDER TO STOCKHOLDERS' AGREEMENT

      This Joinder Agreement (this "JOINDER AGREEMENT") is made as of the date
written below by the undersigned (the "JOINING PARTY") in accordance with
Section 4.21 of the Stockholders' Agreement dated as of February 27, 2004 (the
"STOCKHOLDERS' AGREEMENT") (as the same shall be amended, supplemented or
otherwise modified from time to time), among Solo Cup Investment Corporation and
the parties set forth on the signature pages thereto and any other signatories
added thereafter (including by the execution of a similar joinder agreement).
Capitalized terms used, but not defined, in this Joinder Agreement shall have
the meaning ascribed to those terms in the Stockholders' Agreement.

      The Joining Party hereby acknowledges, agrees and confirms that, by its
execution of this Joinder Agreement, the Joining Party shall become a party to
the Stockholders' Agreement as of the date hereof and shall have all of the
rights and obligations of a Management Investor thereunder as if it had executed
the Stockholders' Agreement directly as a Management Investor. The Joining Party
hereby makes the representations and warranties set forth in Section 4.3(a) of
the Stockholders' Agreement and agrees to be bound as a Management Investor by
all of the terms, provisions and conditions contained in the Stockholders'
Agreement.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Joinder Agreement as
of the date written below.

      Date: ____________, 2004


                                       JOINING PARTY:


                                       -------------------------------------

                                       By:
                                          ----------------------------------
                                       Name:
                                       Title:

Acknowledged and Accepted by:

SOLO CUP INVESTMENT CORPORATION


By:
   ---------------------------
Name:
Title:
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

 DCN: SE03960

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
#### Lee R-, Petitioner, v. Don SOUDER, Sheriff of Douglas County, Missouri, Respondent.

No. 7679.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

Oct. 23, 1957.

James E. Curry, Ava, for petitioner.

John M. Bragg, Ava, for respondent.

STONE, Judge.

In this original proceeding in habeas corpus, which is a companion case with G- v. Souder, 305 S.W.2d 883, petitioner, Lee R-, likewise is held by the Sheriff of Douglas County, Missouri,, under a “capias execution” which states that Lee “was convicted of the offense of' contempt of court and his punishment was-assessed at a term of thirty days in the county jail.” As in Mary’s case, Lee’s conviction was upon a verified information filed' by the Prosecuting Attorney of Douglas County under Section 211.400 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., in a separate case styled State-of Missouri v. Lee R- (hereinafter referred to as the contempt proceeding). After similar preliminary recitals that on the 5th day of April, 1957, in the Juvenile Court of Douglas County, Mary’s three ■ minor children “were adjudged to be neglected children and in need of the protection of said Juvenile Court” and that “it was ordered and adjudged that Lee R-should not visit the home of Mary G-where said children reside,” the information charged that Lee “negligently dis- - obeyed said orders and judgments so made-of April 5th, 1957, by visiting in the home-of Mary G-.” Following trial, the-court entered a “judgment of guilty of the charge of contributing to the neglect of' children who are wards of the Juvenile Court of Douglas County” and assessed’ punishment. Subsequently, defendant was sentenced and the court ordered “defendant committed.”

 For all of the reasons discussed' in Mary’s case, and for yet another, Lee also must be discharged. Lee was not a party to the neglect proceeding. The order of April 5, 1957, in that proceeding was not directed to him. And although the order in ■ the neglect proceeding recited that Mary was present, nothing in the record before us . indicates that Lee was then in court or that he had any knowledge of that order, , prior to institution of the contempt proceeding against him. Under these circumstanc- - *889es, Lee’s commitment for contempt may not be sustained. Consult Ex parte Martin, 330 Mo. 1142, 52 S.W.2d 405; 17 C.J.S. Contempt § 18, p. 23; Ibid., § 72b (2), p. 92; 12 Am.Jur., § 24, p. 405. And note the comment in Ex parte Le Mond, 295 Mo. 586, 594, 245 S.W. 1057, 1058, that “'(disobedience of an order by one to whom it is not addressed is not contempt.’ ”

The petitioner should be and is discharged.

McDowell, p. j., and ruark, j., concur.
#### L. M. JONES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27687.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 22, 1955.

*290No attorney on appeal for appellant.

■ Leon Douglas, State’s Atty;, Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

. The offense is unlawfully carrying a pistol; the punishment, a fine of $200.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and no motion for rehearing will be entertained in this appeal.
Exhibit 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Robert W. McMartin, hereby certify that,
to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Circuit
Research Labs, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained
in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                        /s/ Robert W. McMartin
                                        ----------------------
                                        Robert W. McMartin
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        Circuit Research Labs, Inc.
                                        April 15, 2003




This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-KSB pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
<PAGE>

                                                              Exhibit 21.1

                      ZYCAD CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Set forth below are the subsidiaries of the Registrant:


ZYCAD G.M.B.H.
Bahnhofstrasse 19a
85737 Ismaning
West Germany


ZYCAD SARL
69 rue d'Aguesseau
92100 Boulogne
France


ZYCAD LIMITED
Zycad House
London Road
Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 2UT
England


ZYCAD JAPAN KK
Toshin 24 Shin-Yokohama Bldg. B-8F
2-3-8, Shin Yokohama, Kohoku-ku
Yokohama, 222 Japan


ZYCAD INTERNATIONAL, INC.
47100 Bayside Parkway
Fremont, CA 94538


ATTEST SOFTWARE, INC.
47100 Bayside Parkway
Fremont, CA 94538


                                      24
#### Ernest WINDHAM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27620.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 18, 1955.

*338No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wiley Caffey, Dist. Atty., Abilene, Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is murder; the punishment, 7 years in the penitentiary.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceeding's appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review. The judgment is affirmed.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J EFFREY EU G EN E CO N N ER, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 12- 10073 D. C. No . 2 : 1 0 - c r - 0 0 0 3 6 - GEB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia G a r l a nd E . B urr e l l , J r . , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry11, 2013 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , T A S H IM A , an dW A R D L A W , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J e f f r e yE uge ne C onne rappe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nta nd c ha l l e nge s the 92- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f ol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on f or di s tr i but i on of

c oc a i ne ba s e , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) . W e ha ve



# FI LED FEB 13 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 10073 2 j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. C o n n e rc o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o c e d u r a llye rr e db yf a ilin g to c o n s id e ro re x p la in w h yit r e je c te dh is a r g u m e n t th a t th e c o u rt s h o u ldap p lya1 :1 c r a c k - to - p o w d e rc o c a in e r a tio a n dim p o s e th e m a n d a to rym in im u m s e n te n c e . B e c aus e C onne rf

a i l e d t o obj e c ton thi s ba s i s i n the di s tr i c tc ourt , w e r e vi e w f or p la in e rr o r , s e e U

ni te d State s v . V

ale nc i a- B arr agan , 60 8 F . 3d 11 03 , 11 08 (9th C i r. 2 0 1 0 ), an d fin d n o n e. T h e r ec o rd re flec ts th at th e c o u rt w as aw ar e o f C o n n er ’s a r gum e nt s a nd unde r s t ood i t s di s c r e t i on t o va ryf r om the a dvi s oryG ui de l i ne s on pol i c ygr ounds , butde c l i ne d t o do s o i n l i ghtof the 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) s e nt e nc i ng f a c to r s . T h e c o u rt d idn o t p r o c e d u r a llye rr . Se e U n ite d S ta tes v . Ca r ty , 520 F . 3d 98 4, 99 2-93 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( en banc). AF F I RME D.